When Did Adam Live?

[PaulSacramento]

The issue is still, however, proving that mankind could have come from such a small group AND populated the whole earth in 4300 years.

[RickD]

The issue is still, however, proving that mankind could have come from such a small group AND populated the whole earth in 4300 years.

Sure, that would be an issue. A big issue, if someone believed it was only 4300 years.

[PaulSacramento]

The issue is still, however, proving that mankind could have come from such a small group AND populated the whole earth in 4300 years.

Sure, that would be an issue. A big issue, if someone believed it was only 4300 years.

Well, when did the flood happen then?

FYI:
Here is how science addresses the issue of population size:
http://biologos.org/blog/signature-in-the-snps

[RickD]

The issue is still, however, proving that mankind could have come from such a small group AND populated the whole earth in 4300 years.

Sure, that would be an issue. A big issue, if someone believed it was only 4300 years.

Well, when did the flood happen then?

FYI:
Here is how science addresses the issue of population size:
http://biologos.org/blog/signature-in-the-snps

I'm not sure. Ross says around 50,000 ya.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/biblica ... lood-model
But that article is 4 years old, so I don't know if he's adjusted his time on that since then.
And I don't know why my iPhone still won't paste links properly!

[DBowling]

Lemme ask you guys who are either TE, or contemplating it...especially PaulS, because iirc Paul, you said that you believe Noah's flood was local.

Well... I'm not TE, and I'm not contemplating it either (Michael Behe has presented too much biological evidence to demonstrate that you just can't get there from here by random mutation and natural selection alone)

But as the OP for this thread, I'll take a shot at it anyway.

Correct me if I'm not accurate with what I assume you believe.
If A&E weren't the first people, and others were alive before them, then I'd assume there were others all over the globe. Then fast forward to Noah. If humanity was spread out across the globe, the local flood couldn't have killed all of humanity. Then how do you explain that while keeping to scripture? The historical belief is that all of humanity was so utterly sinful, that God destroyed every human except Noah's family on the ark. How would you explain those across the globe not affected by the local flood, not being killed?

There are two Scriptural issues that have to be dealt with here.
1. Does Scripture claim that the flood covered the whole globe?
2. Does Scripture claim that all humanity across the globe were killed by the flood?

And the answer to both questions involves the correct understanding of what 'kol erets' means within the context of the flood account.
Rich Deem of godandscience.org (this Discussion Board's parent site) has an excellent article titled "The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says it Must Be Local.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

The real issue here is not what Scripture actually says, rather it is the set of presuppositions that people bring to what Scripture actually says.
One of the key points that Rich makes in his article is...
"The 'whole earth' (kol erets) usually refers to local geography"

Once we understand what "kol erets" means within the context of the flood account, alleged problems with a local flood disappear.
Try this and you'll see what I mean... when you read through the flood account substitute the word "earth" for "land of Mesopotamia".
The land that was covered with water was the 'land' of Mesopotamia.
The people that were destroyed were all the people of the land of Mesopotamia
The animals that were destroyed were all the animals of the land of Mesopotamia

Moses' use of the word "erets" (land) to refer to the land of Mesopotamia is very similar to how Luke and Paul use the word "world" to refer to the known Roman world.

In Christ

[PaulSacramento]

The issue is still, however, proving that mankind could have come from such a small group AND populated the whole earth in 4300 years.

Sure, that would be an issue. A big issue, if someone believed it was only 4300 years.

Well, when did the flood happen then?

FYI:
Here is how science addresses the issue of population size:
http://biologos.org/blog/signature-in-the-snps

I'm not sure. Ross says around 50,000 ya.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/biblica ... lood-model
But that article is 4 years old, so I don't know if he's adjusted his time on that since then.
And I don't know why my iPhone still won't paste links properly!

Interesting.
Not sure if that we give enough time still BUT it does brings us far closer.

[PaulSacramento]

Lemme ask you guys who are either TE, or contemplating it...especially PaulS, because iirc Paul, you said that you believe Noah's flood was local.

Well... I'm not TE, and I'm not contemplating it either (Michael Behe has presented too much biological evidence to demonstrate that you just can't get there from here by random mutation and natural selection alone)

But as the OP for this thread, I'll take a shot at it anyway.

Correct me if I'm not accurate with what I assume you believe.
If A&E weren't the first people, and others were alive before them, then I'd assume there were others all over the globe. Then fast forward to Noah. If humanity was spread out across the globe, the local flood couldn't have killed all of humanity. Then how do you explain that while keeping to scripture? The historical belief is that all of humanity was so utterly sinful, that God destroyed every human except Noah's family on the ark. How would you explain those across the globe not affected by the local flood, not being killed?

There are two Scriptural issues that have to be dealt with here.
1. Does Scripture claim that the flood covered the whole globe?
2. Does Scripture claim that all humanity across the globe were killed by the flood?

And the answer to both questions involves the correct understanding of what 'kol erets' means within the context of the flood account.
Rich Deem of godandscience.org (this Discussion Board's parent site) has an excellent article titles "The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says it Must Be Local.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

The real issue here is not what Scripture actually says, rather it is the set of presuppositions that people bring to what Scripture actually says.
One of the key points that Rich makes in his article is...
"The 'whole earth' (kol erets) usually refers to local geography"

Once we understand what "kol erets" means within the context of the flood account, alleged problems with a local flood disappear.
Try this and you'll see what I mean... when you read through the flood account substitute the word "earth" for "land of Mesopotamia".
The land that was covered with water was the 'land' of Mesopotamia.
The people that were destroyed were all the people of the land of Mesopotamia
The animals that were destroyed were all the animals of the land of Mesopotamia

Moses' use of the word "erets" (land) to refer to the land of Mesopotamia is very similar to how Luke and Paul use the word "world" to refer to the known Roman world.

In Christ

That is all well and good and kind of "old news" for Rick and I ( we both believe the flood to be local if I recall correctly) BUT that doesn't address the core of Rick's issue:
All humans sin so why would God only kill some?

[DBowling]

That is all well and good and kind of "old news" for Rick and I ( we both believe the flood to be local if I recall correctly) BUT that doesn't address the core of Rick's issue:
All humans sin so why would God only kill some?

Paul I believe you have already pointed out the reason...
If I remember correctly it was you who pointed out that Genesis 6:1-7 provides the background and context for the judgement of the flood.

(Can anyone think of another time when God's people married into a sinful indigenous population. The result being God's people being sucked into sin and God judging both the indigenous population and God's people who had adopted their sinful ways?)

In Christ

[stuartcr]

First post by a new poster.

Quick bit of background.
I am a progressive creationist who has been a fan of Hugh Ross for years. I also find myself going to and recommending GodandScience.org on a regular basis.

I'm pretty much in sync with Ross on time and cosmology, but I've always struggled a bit with his position on anthropology, particularly the date of the Historic Adam.
So a few months ago I decided to deep dive the topic... focusing on two topics, anthropology in general, and the history of the Levant and ancient Mesopotamia.

In my studies I have come to three conclusions which in turn have led me to a fourth conclusion that to be honest I am struggling with. So I want to share where I am and get some additional perspective from some fellow progressive creationists.
1. Conclusion 1 - Using internal evidence from Scripture alone, the events of Genesis 2-4 take place in the 4000 - 6000 BC time frame.
2. Conclusion 2 - Using the archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia, the events described in Genesis 2-4 take place during the Neolithic era and therefore would have to occur sometime after 10,000 BC. In this case the archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia and the internal Scriptural evidence both point to a time frame for the historic Adam and Eve between 10,0000 and 5,000 BC.
3. Conclusion 3 - Human Beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) had populated the world prior to 10,000 BC. In the case of the Americas the land bridge to North America was gone around 20,000 BC.

Conclusion 4
If the historic Adam lived in Mesopotamia sometime between 10,000 and 5,000 BC
and
If Humans were in the Americas, Australia, Europe, and Asia long before 10,000 BC
Then the Adam of Genesis 2-3 could not be the progenitor of all humans... which causes all kinds of problems for the Augustinian view of The Fall of Man and Original Sin... and I'm a huge fan of Augustine.

Apparently the theistic evolutionists are also struggling with similar issues involving The Fall and Original Sin.
But Behe has convinced me that you can't get there from here using using mutation and Natural Selection alone, so even though I have some similar issues as the theistic evolutionists, my premises as a progressive creationst are very different.

So that's my dilemma...
I have been dragged kicking and screaming to the conclusion that the Historic Adam of Neolithic Mesopotamia could not have been the progenitor of all humans.
So, please feel free to let me know which of my conclusions listed above you believe to be incorrect.

Thanks

In Christ,
Dave

Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve was never meant to be taken literally?

[PaulSacramento]

Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve was never meant to be taken literally?

The issue with that is that all through the bible the story and the people ARE taken as literal.

That said, as some writers have pointed out, even if the story is not to be a literal and concrete telling of what happened, but allegory or more correctly as a representation of humanity as a whole, no doctrine is truly effected.
Some will argue that if Adam was not a real person then Paul's statement of sin and death coming into the world via one man and the world being saved by one man ( Christ), loses it significance.
While I personally think Adam and Eve were real I do NOT believe that if they weren't but simply representatives that Christ's saving grace is somehow nullified.

[stuartcr]

Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve was never meant to be taken literally?

The issue with that is that all through the bible the story and the people ARE taken as literal.

That said, as some writers have pointed out, even if the story is not to be a literal and concrete telling of what happened, but allegory or more correctly as a representation of humanity as a whole, no doctrine is truly effected.
Some will argue that if Adam was not a real person then Paul's statement of sin and death coming into the world via one man and the world being saved by one man ( Christ), loses it significance.
While I personally think Adam and Eve were real I do NOT believe that if they weren't but simply representatives that Christ's saving grace is somehow nullified.

Myself, I believe it is allegory. A necessary allegory though, upon which some can base their view of man's nature.

[DBowling]

Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve was never meant to be taken literally?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "taken literally".

Does the Bible treat Adam and Eve as historical people? Absolutely
- The most blatant use of Adam as a historical person is the role he plays in geneologies. In the OT, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all trace their family line back to Adam.
- And Luke's geneology of Jesus traces the family line of Jesus all the way back to Adam.
- Paul in multiple places in the NT treats Adam and Eve as historical figures. 1 Corinthians 15 is particularly explicit with Paul drawing a direct contrast between Adam and Jesus.
So if you look at how both the OT and NT refer to Adam and Eve, I don't think there can be any doubt that Scripture means for Adam and Eve to be taken as real people who existed in history.

Now does that mean that the Biblical story of Adam and Eve does not contain figurative language? No
Figurative language is an integral part of Jewish culture, and I am sure that there is some figurative language used in the Biblical narrative about the historical Adam and Eve.

Another reason I believe that Adam and Eve are historical people is the appearance of Adam's name in the myths of other cultures that can trace their origins back to early Mesopotamia.
Egyptian, Akkadian, Canaanite, and Amorite myth/legend all have a person with a name equivalent to or the same as the Biblical Adam. (Adamu, Adapa, Atum).
The interesting thing about these legends is they have enough similarities to indicate there is some common source of some sort for the myths and the Biblical account of Adam, but there are enough differences to indicate that the Biblical account is not directly dependent on these 'Adam' legends or visa versa.

And then there is the 4,000 year old Mesopotamian cylinder seal impression which appears to show Adam and Eve seated around a tree with what appears to be a snake hovering behind Eve. If this is the correct interpretation of this ancient image then this could be extrascriptural corroboration for the Biblical story of "the Fall".

As I mention above I am sure there is figurative language used in the Biblical narrative of Adam Eve, but I am equally convinced by both the internal Scriptural evidence and the extrascriptural Mesopotamian evidence that Adam and Eve were historical people who lived in Mesopotamia somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 BC.

In Christ

[EssentialSacrifice]

If you like 5000-6000 years ago, you'll probably like this.... http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53 ... the uniform timeline distinction of Adam.

It All Starts From Adam

The question we’re left with is, how long ago did the Big Bang creation occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, fewer than 6,000 years, or was it the 14 billions of years that are accepted by the scientific community? The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the biblical calendar.

The biblical calendar age of the universe is calculated by adding up the generations since Adam. This reaches a number slightly under 6000 years. Additionally, there are six days (actually the biblical text gives 5 and a half days) from the creation of the universe to the creation of the first human, that is the first being with the soul of a human (not the first hominid, a being with human shape and intelligence, but lacking the soul of humanity, the neshama). We have a calendar that begins with Adam. The six pre-Adam days are separate from this. The Bible has two calendars, two clocks. This is no modern rationalization. The Talmud already discussed this 1600 years ago.

The reason the six pre-Adam days (Genesis 1:1 – 27) were taken out of the calendar is because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. There the passage of each day is described as “There was evening and morning” with no relationship to human time. Once we come to the progeny of Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having Seth. Seth lives 105 years before having Enosh, etc. (Genesis chapter 5). From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human-based, earth -based. But prior to that time, it’s an abstract concept: “Evening and morning.” It’s as if the Bible is looking at those events of Genesis One from a viewpoint other than the earth, a cosmic view of time. What might be the Biblical perception of the timing of those events prior to Adam relative to our earth-based measurements?

and the "timely" rest of the history of the universe and why.

[UsagiTsukino]

Well technically Adam and Eve could be the first Homo Sapiens. The first modern humans if you believe evolutions. I mean the earth continents were together at one point and than separated. Many before the separation had used the land bridge to learn in the other continents.

http://biologos.org/blog/adam-eve-and-h ... -poythress

[DBowling]

If you like 5000-6000 years ago, you'll probably like this....

As I've mentioned throughout this thread I am becoming more and more convinced that the historic Adam and Eve did live sometime around 5000 - 6000 BC. However, I do also subscribe to the standard scientific age of the universe of around 16 billion years.

When I started to consider the possibility that Genesis 1 and 2 were chronologically sequential instead of presuming that Genesis 2 was a recapitulation of Genesis 1 day 6, I realized that with the sequential model there are no internal Scriptural chronological indicators for the events that occurred between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:4.
This means that Scripture tells us nothing about when "God created the heavens and the earth" in Genesis 1:1, or even when "God created mankind in his image" in Genesis 1:26-27.

Scripture's internal chronological indicators begin with the appearance of the historical Adam in Genesis 2:5 in conjunction with Adam's presence in the geneological records in Genesis 5. And as I've noted before, Scripture's geneologies and extrascriptural Mesopotamian history both place the historical Adam in Mesopotamia somewhere around 5000 - 6000 BC.

So here are some key time frames that I am currently working with:
Genesis 1:1 - God creates the heavens and the earth (The Big Bang) - Around 16 billion years ago
Genesis 1:26-27 - God creates mankind in his image - there are two possibilities I'm considering
- The appearance of anatomically modern humans (species homo sapiens sapiens) - 150,000 - 200,000 years ago
- The appearance of behaviorally modern humans - 50,000 - 70,000 years ago
Genesis 2:15 - God places the historical Adam in the Garden of Eden - 5,000 - 6,000 BC

So that's where I'm currently at regarding the timing for some of the key events of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.